American trade policy needs fresh thinking,beginning with the definition of “free trade.”Traditionally, free trade has been defined as thelowering and elimination of barriers to trade,but a more comprehensive and accurate defini-tion should include opposition to trade subsi-dies. Those subsidies, including the Export-Import Bank and agricultural price supports,distort trade by shifting trade and the use ofproductive resources away from what Ameri-cans would choose in a truly free market.

If we define free trade to include opposi-tion to trade subsidies as well as trade barriers,members of the 108th Congress can be clas-sified into four categories: free traders, whooppose both trade barriers and subsidies;internationalists, who oppose barriers andsupport subsidies; isolationists, who supportbarriers and oppose subsidies; and interven-tionists, who support barriers and subsidies.

An analysis of voting on 23 key issues in the108th Congress finds that few members voteconsistently for free trade. In the House, 22Republicans and 3 Democrats opposed barriersand subsidies in more than two-thirds of thevotes they cast.The most consistent free traders

were Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Michael Castle (R-DE), Susan Davis (D-CA),Vernon Ehlers (R-MI),Jim Ramstad (R-MN),Christopher Shays(R-CT), and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD). Ofthe other members, 157 voted as international-ists, 2 as isolationists, and 16 as interventionists.The rest had mixed voting records.

In the Senate, 15 Republicans and 9Democrats voted as free traders.The most con-sistent were John Sununu (R-NH), WayneAllard (R-CO), Sam Brownback (R-KS), andPat Roberts (R-KS). Of the other senators, 24voted as internationalists,15 as interventionists,and none as isolationists. The rest had mixedvoting records.

A more extended examination of “career”voting on trade since 1993 finds that the mostconsistent free traders were Rep. Jeff Flake andSen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.); the most consis-tent internationalists were Rep. John Booz-man (R-AR) and Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA);the most consistent isolationists were Rep.JohnDuncan Jr. (R-TN) and Sen. Jon Corzine (D-NJ); and the most consistent interventionistswere Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-MO) andSen. Ernest “Fritz” Hollings (D-SC).

Free Trade, Free MarketsRating the 108th Congress

by Daniel Griswold

March 16, 2005 No. 28

Daniel Griswold is director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies.

Executive Summary

Introduction

American trade policy needs fresh thinking,beginning with the definition of “free trade.”Traditionally, free trade has meant the loweringand eventual elimination of barriers to tradebetween nations. People who favor free tradeare characterized as internationalists, who wantto lower trade barriers to promote U.S. engage-ment in the global economy. Pulling U.S. poli-cy in the opposite direction are the protection-ists, sometimes known as isolationists, whowant to raise or at least maintain trade barriersand oppose trade expansion. But that simple,one-dimensional analysis disguises the truenature of the trade debate.

As the new 109th Congress begins to shapeU.S. trade policy, the choice before its memberswill be not between engagement and isolationbut between the free market and governmentintervention. The guiding question should bewhether U.S. policy favors a free internationalmarket by advancing free trade and rejectinggovernment intervention, such as export andagricultural subsidies, or whether it favorsintervention by maintaining and raising notonly barriers to trade but also various subsidies.

Thus the real policy choices beforeCongress are not the two traditional paths ofengagement or isolation but four paths.Through their votes on legislation, members ofCongress can

1. oppose both trade barriers and trade sub-sidies,

2. oppose barriers and favor subsidies,3. favor barriers and oppose subsidies, or4. favor both barriers and subsidies.

By considering those four policy alterna-tives, this study offers a more accurate and use-ful way of measuring how Congress as a wholeand its individual members vote on issuesaffecting American involvement in the globaleconomy. It analyzes 12 major votes in theHouse during the recently concluded 108thCongress and another 11 in the Senate affect-ing both trade barriers and trade subsidies. It

then classifies members of Congress accordingto their degree of support for an internationalmarket free from the distorting effects of barri-ers and subsidies.

The purpose of the study is to articulate ahigher standard for free trade and to measurethe performance of the most recent Congressaccording to that standard.

How Government Distorts International

Trade and InvestmentDespite all the hype about globalization and

the supposed universal triumph of free-marketpolicies, governments around the world con-tinue to intervene in the flow of goods, ser-vices, people, and capital across internationalborders. That widespread intervention takestwo basic forms: tax and regulatory barriersaimed at discouraging certain types of com-merce and direct taxpayer subsidies aimed atencouraging or discouraging other types ofcommerce.

Trade BarriersTrade barriers reduce global wealth by

denying people and nations the ability to spe-cialize in what they do best. Barriers protecthigher-cost domestic producers from lower-cost competition abroad, raising domesticprices and drawing capital and labor away fromindustries that would be more competitive inglobal markets. Barriers to trade across interna-tional borders prevent producers from realizingthe full benefits of economies of scale. Byreducing competition, they stymie innovationand technological advances, reducing an econ-omy’s long-term growth.

Global tariff and nontariff barriers havefallen remarkably in the last 50 years, firstamong the richer, industrialized countries andmore recently among those that are less devel-oped. China is the most spectacular example ofthe latter. But barriers remain stubbornly highworldwide against free trade in agriculturalproducts, textiles and clothing, and many basicservices such as insurance and air travel. Those

2

The purpose of this study is to

articulate a higherstandard for free

trade and to measure the

performance of themost recent

Congress accordingto that standard.

barriers cost hundreds of billions of dollars ayear in lost wealth and keep hundreds of mil-lions of people in poverty.1

U.S. trade barriers continue to impose realcosts on the U.S. economy despite postwarprogress toward liberalization. The U.S. govern-ment maintains high anti-consumer barriers totrade against such manufactured products asshoes, clothing, watches, tableware, and textilesand farm goods such as sugar, peanuts, cotton,dairy products, beef, canned tuna, and frozenfruit and fruit juices. Other import barriersimpose higher costs on U.S. producers, such asthose against shipbuilding, softwood lumber,ball and roller bearings, pressed and blown glass,and coastal maritime shipping (through theJones Act), jeopardizing jobs and production inimport-consuming industries. The U.S.International Trade Commission estimatedconservatively that those barriers impose anannual collective drag on the U.S. economy ofmore than $14 billion.2 Meanwhile, discrimina-tory antidumping laws “protect” consumers andimport-using industries from the benefits ofcompetition and lower prices.

Trade SubsidiesGlobal commerce is further distorted by

widespread use of subsidies aimed at promot-ing certain kinds of trade, investment, anddomestic production. Those subsidies encour-age overproduction of domestic agriculturalproducts, through farm price supports, andexports and overseas investment in less-devel-oped countries, through such agencies as theOverseas Private Investment Corporation andthe Export-Import Bank. Indeed, many sup-porters of lower trade barriers look kindly onsuch subsidies because they seem to promoteeconomic activity at home and “engagement”in the global economy. But both kinds of inter-vention—barriers and subsidies—reduce ournational welfare and curb the freedom ofAmericans to spend and invest their resourcesas they see fit.

Subsidies reduce national welfare by direct-ing resources to less-efficient uses, substitutingthe judgment of government officials for that ofprivate actors in the marketplace. Export subsi-

dies such as those extended by the U.S. Export-Import Bank can raise demand for exports pro-duced by the small number of U.S. multination-al companies that benefit from its loans. But theincreased production spurred by the extraexports raises costs for other, less-favored exportindustries competing for the same labor, capital,and intermediate inputs. They also crowd outunsubsidized exporters as foreign buyers bid upthe price of U.S. dollars on foreign exchangemarkets to buy the more attractive, subsidizedU.S. exports. Export subsidies also impose ahigher burden on taxpayers.3

Like trade barriers, export subsidies favorthe few at the expense of the many, make oureconomy less efficient, and reduce total nation-al welfare. Output is focused not where returnsare highest but where political clout is greatest.As a Congressional Research Service reportconcluded, “At the national level, subsidizedexport financing merely shifts productionamong sectors within the economy, rather thanadding to the overall level of economic activity,and subsidizes foreign consumption at theexpense of the domestic economy.”4

Equally damaging to global trade and wel-fare are domestic subsidies to agriculture. Thosesubsidies encourage overproduction and theflooding of world markets with commoditiessold at below their actual cost of production.Artificially lower world prices then discourageproduction in countries, typically the less-devel-oped ones, where the costs of production arenaturally lower.The biggest losers from the sub-sidies are taxpayers and consumers in rich coun-tries and producers in poor countries.

Subsidies further undermine an efficientand open global economy by tainting the causeof liberalized trade. Advocates of subsidiesimply that American companies can competein an open global economy only if the playingfield is “leveled” by aggressive export promotionprograms aimed at huge multinational corpora-tions—as if free trade were inherently unfairunless offset by selective subsidies. Support forsubsidies reinforces mistrust of the free market,reducing rather than encouraging support forfree trade. International economic subsidiesfeed suspicions on the left and the right that

3

Like trade barriers,export subsidiesfavor the few at theexpense of themany, make oureconomy less efficient, andreduce total national welfare.

free trade is just another form of corporate wel-fare.

Trade restrictions and subsidies are prompt-ed by the same basic assumption: thatAmericans acting freely in the global market-place cannot be trusted to spend their moneyin ways most beneficial to our national interest.That misconception leads to the policy error ofthinking that government must thereforeintervene, through either subsidies or restric-tions, to produce an outcome different fromwhat the market would create if left alone.

The Free-Trade Matrix:No Barriers, No Subsidies

True supporters of free trade and free mar-kets oppose not only protection but also mar-ket-distorting subsidies.That means the choicefor policymakers is not merely betweenengagement in the global economy, subsidiesand all, and isolation from it. The real choice isamong four contrasting approaches to interna-tional economic policy: lower trade barrierswithout subsidies, lower barriers with subsi-dies, higher barriers with subsidies, and higherbarriers without subsidies.

Combining trade barriers and trade subsi-dies as measures of free trade creates a two-

dimensional matrix for evaluating public policytoward the free market and the internationaleconomy. That matrix allows the voting recordof a member of Congress to be classified in oneof four broad categories rather than on thesimplistic one-dimensional scale with freetrade at one pole and protectionism at theother (Figure 1).

According to the matrix,members of Congresscan be classified in one of four categories:

Free TradersFree traders consistently vote against both

trade barriers and international economic subsi-dies. The end result of their votes is to enhancethe free market and the ability of Americans todecide for themselves how to spend their moneyin the global marketplace. This group opposeslegislation restricting the choice of goods andservices Americans may buy voluntarily—whether apparel from Guatemala, shoes fromVietnam, trucking services from Mexico, orvacations in Cuba—and opposes the forcedexpatriation of tax dollars through export subsi-dies, overseas investment guarantees, and gov-ernment-to-government bailouts. Members ofthis group can lay rightful claim to the title offree traders because they support trade that isfree of all types of government intervention,whether in the form of barriers or of subsidies.

InternationalistsMembers of this group generally vote for

trade liberalization but also support subsidies thatthey believe promote the same end.Their touch-stone is not economic freedom but U.S.participa-tion in the global economy through both expand-ed trade and direct government participation inthe form of export subsidies and government-to-government loans. Internationalists are pro-trade,favoring the reduction of import barriers as gen-erally good for the economy and even worldpeace, but they also believe the global economicsystem cannot work in America’s interest withoutU.S. taxpayer subsidies.

IsolationistsThis category includes members of Congress

who tend to vote against reducing trade barriers

4

No

No Yes

Yes Free Traders

Internationalists

Isolationists

Interventionists

Opposes Trade Barriers

Oppose

s S

ubsi

die

s

Figure 1

Who Supports Free Trade?

and also oppose international economic subsi-dies. They can reasonably be called isolationistsbecause they tend to oppose expanded Americaninvolvement in the global economy, whetherthrough voluntary transactions or taxpayer subsi-dies. Isolationists show respect for their con-stituents as taxpayers by resisting tax-financedsubsidies, but they question their judgment asconsumers by restricting their freedom to buy,sell, and invest freely in the global marketplace.

InterventionistsMembers of this group consistently support

government intervention at the expense of thefree market—favoring both subsidies and tradebarriers. They tend to oppose bills and amend-ments that would lower trade barriers, as wellas those that would cut or eliminate trade andinvestment subsidies. Interventionists rejectthe judgment of Americans twice, first bydenying them full liberty to spend their privatedollars beyond our borders and then by seekingto divert public tax dollars for export promo-tion and government-to-government bailoutpackages.

How the 108th Congress Voted on Trade

During the 108th Congress, members hadnumerous opportunities to vote to reduce tradebarriers but only two opportunities to reducetrade subsidies. In the House, members votedon 11 bills and amendments with a directimpact on the freedom of Americans to tradewith people in the rest of the world, and oneamendment directly affected the level of subsi-dies doled out by the federal government topromote exports. In the Senate, this studyidentified 10 key bills and amendments thatdirectly affected barriers to international com-merce and one “vote” (a signed letter) thatinvolved subsidies for domestic producers fac-ing international competition.

Not all of those votes offer a pure test ofsupport for free trade. By its nature, the legisla-tive process produces compromise legislationthat, while aimed primarily at reducing or

increasing barriers or subsidies to trade, canalso contain relatively minor provisions thatwould have an ambiguous or contrary impacton free trade.

Each of the bills and amendments and theletter described below represents a reasonablyclear attempt to either expand or restrict thefreedom to trade. The descriptions are notintended to provide a definitive argument foror against the legislation; their intent is only toexplain why, from a free-market perspective,the vote either hinders or promotes free tradeas defined above. Where available, studies andarticles providing more detailed argumentshave been cited. To further illustrate congres-sional attitudes toward trade barriers and sub-sidies, some comments made by members ofCongress during floor debates appear in theaccompanying boxes.

Votes on Trade BarriersMiscellaneous Tariff Reductions and Laos

NTR. The Miscellaneous Trade and TechnicalCorrections Act of 2004 is the kind of unilater-al free trade Congress should practice moreoften. It suspends duties on hundreds of specif-ic imported goods, including chemicals anddyes, textile machinery, railway passenger cars,and “a replica of the Liberty Bell imported fromthe Whitechapel Bell Foundry of London,England, by the Liberty Memorial Associationof Green Bay and Brown County, Wisconsin,”while refunding duties paid on certain previous-ly imported goods. It also establishes “normaltrade relations” with Laos, allowing importsfrom that small Southeast Asian country toenter the United States under the same dutiesthat apply to all but two other countries.5

On March 5, 2003, the House voted 415 to11 (Roll Call Vote 45) to pass the MiscellaneousTrade and Technical Corrections Act. OnNovember 19, 2004, the Senate approved a finalversion of the bill by a vote of 88 to 5 (Roll CallVote 214).

Computer Export Controls. Since 1998Congress has imposed export controls on so-called supercomputers, defined as those thatprocess above a certain speed, measured in mil-

5

Interventionistsreject the judgmentof Americanstwice, first by denying them liberty to spendtheir private dollarsbeyond our bordersand then by seeking to divertpublic tax dollarsfor export promotion.

lions of theoretical operations per second(MTOPS). An amendment was offered in theHouse that would have made it easier for theadministration to raise the MTOPS ceiling toreflect the ever-changing definition of a super-computer. Industry critics of the existing rulesclaim that the limits are too restrictive and suc-ceed only at hindering U.S. computer exports tocountries such as China. Meanwhile, the con-trols do nothing to protect our national securitybecause computing power has become such alow-cost commodity in the global economy.

On May 22, 2003, the House voted 207 to217 (Roll Call Vote 219) to reject an amendmentby Reps.David Dreier (R-CA) and Zoe Lofgren(D-CA) that would have relaxed restrictions oncomputer exports and directed the administra-tion to find an alternative to using MTOPS asthe criterion.

Urge EU to End GMO Ban. For several years,the European Union has enforced an almosttotal ban on the importation of genetically mod-ified foods (also known as genetically modifiedorganisms, or GMOs).The EU justifies the banon food safety grounds, even though GMOproducts grown and exported by Americanfarmers have proven to be perfectly safe forhuman consumption and indeed have been con-sumed in the United States for a decade or morewith no negative effects on public health. TheEU’s restrictions of GMOs hurt U.S. farmexporters and arguably violate World Trade

Organization agreements that prohibit mem-bers from using food safety rules as disguisedtrade barriers.The United States has filed a casein the WTO against the EU’s restrictions onGMOs.6

On July 10, 2003, the House voted 339 to80 (Roll Call Vote 256) in favor of a resolutionurging the Bush administration to challengethe EU’s trade-distorting restrictions on agri-cultural and food biotechnology.

Burma Trade Sanctions. The government ofBurma is one of the most politically and eco-nomically oppressive regimes in the world. It hasharassed, jailed, and killed political opponentsand kept the country largely isolated from theworld economy. To express its opposition tohuman rights abuses in Burma, the 108th U.S.Congress overwhelmingly approved targetedsanctions against Burma’s rulers and a virtualban on imports from Burma to the UnitedStates. Although well-meant, such sanctionsseldom work. In fact, their impact will fall mostheavily on the people we are trying to help bydepriving them of what limited opportunitythey may have had to earn higher wages byexporting to global markets or working for for-eign-owned companies that typically pay higherwages and offer better working conditions. Asoppressive as the current Burmese regime is, itposes no direct security threat to the UnitedStates. A better approach to promoting humanrights in such countries as Cuba, China, and

6

A better approachto promoting

human rights insuch countries as

Cuba, China, andBurma would be to

encourage moretrade and economic

liberalization.

Chile and Singapore Free-Trade Agreements

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT): “On services, both agreements offer expanded market accessfor U.S. services providers and strong transparency rules for service regulations. . . .Enhanced market access for services is critical, because the service sector now provides themajority of American jobs. So expanding services trade means more job opportunities.”Congressional Record, July 31, 2003, p. S10530.

Sen. Jon Corzine (D-NJ): “Beyond the enormity of the trade deficit, American busi-nesses increasingly are shipping jobs overseas. Not just low-skilled jobs, but professional,highly skilled and well paid jobs. That is one reason the so-called economic recovery tout-ed by the Bush administration has widely been characterized as a jobless recovery. In fact, itis worse than a jobless recovery, it is a job-killing recovery. And while workers in this coun-try are losing jobs, our trade policy is helping to create jobs overseas.” Congressional Record,July 31, 2003, p. S10587.

Burma would be to encourage more trade andeconomic liberalization.7

On July 15, 2003, the House voted 418 to 2(Roll Call Vote 361) to approve the BurmeseFreedom and Democracy Act of 2003, which,among other things, prohibits the importation ofany Burmese products to the United States.Thenext day, on July 16, 2003, the Senate voted 94 to1 (Roll Call Vote 280) to pass the same bill.

Chile FTA. The U.S.-Chile free-tradeagreement eliminates barriers to trade betweenthe two countries, covering 87 percent of tradeupon its implementation in 2004 and remain-ing goods during phase-in periods ranging upto 12 years. The agreement breaks new groundin opening up opportunities for U.S. serviceexports such as telecommunications, engineer-ing, express delivery, and retailing. The U.S.-Chile FTA recognizes Chile’s aggressive tradeand economic reforms of recent decades, whichhave transformed it into Latin America’s moststable and prosperous economy while strength-ening its democracy.8

On July 24, 2003, the House voted 270 to 156(Roll Call Vote 436) in favor of the United States–Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

On July 31, 2003, the Senate voted 65 to 32 (RollCall Vote 319) in favor of the agreement.

Singapore FTA. The U.S.-Singapore free-trade agreement establishes free trade betweenour two countries by virtually eliminatingremaining barriers to trade in goods and servicesupon implementation in 2004. Exceptions areimports to the United States of beef, dairy prod-ucts, and sugar, and those barriers are phased outin 10 years. The agreement should please thosewho demand “a level playing field,” withSingapore agreeing to eliminate every one of itsremaining barriers to U.S. goods “on the date thisAgreement enters into force.”The agreement alsocontains strong protections for the $30 billion ofU.S. direct investment in the Southeast Asiancity-state, which is already one of the world’smost open and prosperous nations.9

On July 24, 2003, the House voted 272 to 155(Roll Call Vote 432) to approve the UnitedStates–Singapore Free Trade Agreement Imple-mentation Act. On July 31, 2003, the Senate con-curred by a vote of 66 to 32 (Roll Call Vote 318).

Cuba Travel and Remittances. The UnitedStates has maintained a comprehensive econom-

7

The U.S.-ChileFTA recognizesChile’s aggressivetrade and economicreforms of recentdecades, whichhave transformed it into LatinAmerica’s most stable and prosperous economy whilestrengthening itsdemocracy.

Lifting the Travel Ban to Cuba

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “Of all the ridiculous, anachronistic, and self-defeating poli-cies, this has got to be near the top of the list. [The U.S. government] is spending scarce fundsto prosecute harmless, law-abiding, upstanding American citizens who want nothing morethan to experience another culture, and in doing so, leave a bit of America behind. . . . Ourpolicy is hypocritical, inconsistent, and contrary to our values as a nation that believes in thefree flow of people and ideas. It is beneath us. It is impossible for anyone to make a rationalargument that an American should be able to travel freely to North Korea, or Iran, but notto Cuba.” Congressional Record, October 23, 2003, pp. S13083–84.

Sen. John Ensign (R-NV): “The fact is, American tourists cannot change Cuba anymore than Europeans or Canadians or Latin Americans have—because in Cuba you can-not do business with individual Cubans—you have to do business with Castro. . . . Touristseven fund Castro’s security apparatus when they stay in hotels owned by foreign investors.In Cuba, when a foreign investor comes to town, they do not hire or pay Cuban workersdirectly—only the Castro regime can legally employ a Cuban citizen. They pay Castro inhard currency for each worker—often as much as $10,000 per employee. Castro then paysthe workers in worthless Cuban pesos—the equivalent of $15 or $20 a month—and pock-ets the rest.” Congressional Record, October 23, 2003, p. S13086.

ic embargo against Cuba for more than fourdecades in an unsuccessful effort to oust the com-munist government of Fidel Castro. The 108thCongress considered legislation to loosen theembargo by granting Americans greater freedomto visit and to send remittances to Cuba. Thealmost total embargo has failed to achieve its pol-icy objective of overthrowing the Cuban govern-ment or of even modifying its oppressive rule.American citizens have paid the price of that fail-ure in lost economic freedom to trade, invest, andtravel.The embargo has deprived Cuban citizensof economic opportunity while giving the Cubangovernment a handy excuse for the failures of itssocialist economic system.10

On September 9, 2003, the House voted 227to 188 (Roll Call Vote 483) in favor of an amend-ment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) that would pro-hibit the use of funds by the U.S. Department ofthe Treasury to enforce the ban that prevents U.S.citizens from traveling freely to Cuba.That sameday, the House voted 222 to 196 (Roll Call Vote484) in favor of an amendment by WilliamDelahunt (D-MA) that would prohibit Treasuryfrom using funds to enforce restrictions on howmuch money Americans can send through remit-tances to nationals of Cuba or Cuban households.On October 23, 2003, the Senate voted 36 to 59(Roll Call Vote 405) against a motion to table(i.e., kill) an amendment by Sen. Byron Dorgan(D-ND) that would have prohibited funds frombeing used to enforce the travel ban to Cuba.

Country-of-Origin Labeling. The 2002 farmbill required that a country-of-origin label(COOL) be stamped on meat, fish, peanuts, andproduce imports starting in the fall of 2004.Implementation of the requirement was sus-pended by Congress because of concerns that itis really a disguised form of protectionism. Suchlabeling adds regulatory costs that do nothing toprotect consumer health and safety and thusunnecessarily raise the cost of food for Americanfamilies. This provision of the law will make itmore difficult for the United States to resistdemands by the European Union that all genet-ically modified organism products from theUnited States be labeled, even though such prod-ucts have been proven safe in study after study.Mandating country-of-origin labeling unneces-sarily interferes with trade, leading the world in adirection that will harm the American farmer.11

On November 6, 2003, the Senate voted 36to 58 (Roll Call 443) against a motion to table anamendment by Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) thatdirected Senate conferees to reject any limits onthe use of funds to implement COOL require-ments for imported meat or meat products. Avote in favor of the motion to table the amend-ment was in effect a vote against country-of-ori-gin labeling.

Foreign Outsourcing Restrictions. A newtrade issue before the 108th Congress was “for-eign outsourcing”—the importation of services

8

The almost totalembargo has failed

to achieve its policy objective of

overthrowing the Cuban

government or ofeven modifying its

oppressive rule.

Foreign Outsourcing and Jobs

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA): “It’s hard to listen to a politician or pundit these dayswithout hearing that America is ‘losing jobs’ to poorer nations—manufacturing jobs toChina, back-office work to India, just about every job to Latin America. This lament dis-tracts our attention from the larger challenge of preparing more Americans for better jobs.. . . We should stop pining after the days when millions of Americans stood along assemblylines and continuously bolted, fit, soldered, or clamped whatever went by. Those days areover. And stop blaming poor nations whose workers get very low wages.” CongressionalRecord, March 4, 2004, p. S2194.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT): “I think shipping jobs away, destroying the manufacturingbase and human capital investment that makes it possible in the 21st century for us to becompetitive in a global economy is the wrong way to proceed.” Congressional Record, March4, 2004, p. S2190.

to the United States or the relocation of pro-duction facilities from the United States toother countries. Two attempts were made inthe U.S. Senate to curb outsourcing. One wasan amendment by Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) to forbid certain agencies of the federalgovernment from contracting for services withcompanies that would provide the work fromoverseas. Another was an amendment by Sen.Byron Dorgan (D-ND) to raise taxes on U.S.companies that produce goods abroad for salein the United States and would require compa-nies to notify employees and the Departmentof Labor when jobs will be moved offshore,including the number of jobs affected, the des-tination of the relocated production, and rea-sons for the relocation.12

On March 4, 2004, the Senate voted 70 to26 (Roll Call Vote 32) to approve the Doddamendment to restrict certain federal agenciesfrom outsourcing certain kinds of work. OnMay 5, 2004, the Senate voted 60 to 39 (RollCall Vote 83) to table the Dorgan amendmentthat would have discouraged private-sectoroutsourcing.

Australia FTA. The U.S.-Australia free-tradeagreement will eventually eliminate barriers toalmost all trade between the two developed coun-tries. The agreement eliminates barriers to tradein industrial products and commercial services. Itimmediately eliminates or phases out protectionof politically sensitive agricultural products, withthe glaring exception of Australian sugar importsto the United States, which will continue to berestricted by quota. The agreement also cementsU.S. ties to an important ally in the war againstinternational terrorism.13

On July 14, 2004, the House voted 314 to 109(Roll Call Vote 375) to approve the UnitedStates–Australia Free Trade Agreement Imple-mentation Act. On July 15, 2004, the Senate voted80 to 16 (Roll Call Vote 156) to approve the bill.

Morocco FTA. The U.S.-Morocco free-tradeagreement reduces tariffs and other trade barri-ers between the two countries beginning onJanuary 1, 2005. More than 95 percent of bilat-eral trade will become duty-free upon imple-

mentation, and protection of other, more politi-cally sensitive items will be phased out duringthe next nine years. Although the FTA will haveminimal impact on the U.S. economy, it servesan important foreign policy interest by encour-age more economic openness and reform in amoderate Muslim-majority country.14

On July 21, 2004, the Senate voted 85 to 13(Roll Call Vote 159) to approve the UnitedStates–Morocco Free Trade Agreement Imple-mentation Act. On July 22, 2004, the Housevoted 323 to 99 (Roll Call Vote 413) to approvethe same act.

Foreign-Born Doctors. Many rural areas inthe United States lack an adequate number ofphysicians to serve the health care needs of res-idents. Through various visa programs, includ-ing programs that encourage those doctors topractice in “underserved” rural areas, Congresshas allowed qualified foreign-born doctors topractice in the United States. By allowingAmericans to import the medical services ofqualified foreign doctors, the program helps toprovide more affordable and readily availablehealth care in the United States.

On November 17, 2004, the House voted407 to 4 (Roll Call Vote 533) in favor of amotion by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)to provide a two-year extension of a programthat allows foreign nationals who graduate frommedical school in the United States to stay inthe country if they agree to practice medicine forthree years in specified, mostly rural areas.

Votes on Trade SubsidiesByrd Amendment on Antidumping Duties. In

2000 Congress enacted the Continued Dumpingand Subsidy Offset Act, which distributes anti-dumping duties collected by the U.S. governmentto the companies that filed the original anti-dumping petitions against their foreign competi-tion. The so-called Byrd amendment, namedafter its sponsor, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV),encourages continued abuse of America’s flawedantidumping laws. It has also been found in vio-lation of U.S. obligations in the World TradeOrganization to curb subsidies for domesticindustry.15

9

The so-called Byrd amendmentencourages continued abuse ofAmerica’s flawedantidumping laws.It has also beenfound in violationof U.S. obligationsin the World TradeOrganization tocurb subsidies fordomestic industry.

On February 3, 2003, 70 members of theU.S. Senate signed a letter declaring that theywould oppose any efforts to repeal the Byrdamendment. Although the letter does not rep-resent a formal vote in favor of the Byrdamendment, signing it does represent supportfor a law that promotes unfair barriers to tradeand subsidies U.S. companies that compete inglobal markets.

Market Access Program Limits. MarketAccess Program funds are distributed by theU.S. Department of Agriculture to promotethe sale abroad of goods containing U.S. agri-cultural products. Like other export subsidies,the MAP program does not promote trade ingeneral but favors some exporters—in this casethose using U.S. farm produce in their finalproducts—over others. By doing so, the pro-gram helps to underwrite the foreign advertis-ing and marketing costs of some of the largestU.S. multinational corporations.

On July 13, 2004, the House rejected, by avote of 72 to 347 (Roll Call Vote 368), an amend-ment by Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) that wouldhave amended the Agriculture Department andRural Development Appropriations bill for fiscalyear 2005 to prohibit federal funds from beingused to carry out activities in the Market AccessProgram.

Who Supports Free International Markets?

The 108th Congress provided ampleopportunities for members of the House andSenate to either oppose or support trade barri-ers. Unfortunately, there was only one clearopportunity in each chamber to oppose or sup-port trade subsidies. Although more votes arepreferable to fewer when categorizing mem-bers, the one vote does provide at least animperfect indicator of who is more favorabletoward the broader definition of free tradearticulated in this study.

Members were deemed to exhibit a consis-tent pattern of voting if they voted two-thirdsor more of the time either for or against trade

barriers and trade subsidies. Those who votedtwo-thirds of the time or more against bothtrade barriers and subsidies were classified asfree traders.Those who voted two-thirds of thetime against trade barriers and for subsidieswere classified as internationalists. Those whovoted two-thirds of the time for trade barriersand against subsidies were classified as isola-tionists. And those who voted two-thirds ofthe time for trade barriers and for subsidieswere classified as interventionists.

A House Still Divided on Trade Barriers As in previous Congresses, only a small

minority of House members voted as free traders.Of the 432 House members of the 108thCongress who voted on at least half of the bills oramendments rated in this study, 25 voted consis-tently to reduce trade barriers and trade subsidies.Another 157, by far the largest category, voted asinternationalists, consistently opposing trade bar-riers but supporting trade subsidies. Only 2 votedconsistently as isolationists, favoring trade barriersand opposing subsidies. Another 16 voted asinterventionists, consistently supporting tradebarriers and subsidies.16

Of the 25 free traders,22 were Republicans and3 were Democrats. The only House member tovote against subsides and barriers at every opportu-nity was Rep.Jeff Flake,a second-term Republicanfrom Arizona. Voting for free trade on every votebut one were Reps.Michael Castle (R-DE),SusanDavis (D-CA), Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), JimRamstad (R-MN), Christopher Shays (R-CT),Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Donald Manzullo(R-IL), Vito Fossella (R-NY), and Mark Udall(D-CO).Among the other free traders was HouseMajority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX).

Of the 157 internationalists in the House, 84were Republicans and 73 were Democrats. Rep.Nancy Johnson (R-CT) voted against trade barri-ers and for subsidies in every vote she cast.Another53 members voted as internationalists on every votethey cast but one. Among the higher-profile inter-nationalists in the 108th Congress were MinorityLeader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Minority WhipSteny Hoyer (D-MD), ranking Ways and MeansCommittee member Charles Rangel (D-NY),Reps. Cal Dooley (D-CA), William Jefferson (D-

10

As in previousCongresses, only a

small minority ofHouse members

voted as freetraders.

LA), the late Robert Matsui (D-CA), Jim Kolbe(R-AZ), Ray LaHood (R-IL), Phil Crane (R-IL),David Dreier (R-CA), Katherine Harris (R-FL),and Michael Oxley (R-OH).

The two House isolationists in the 108thCongress were both Democrats from NewJersey, Reps. Robert Andrews and Bill Pascrell.

Of the 16 interventionists, 10 were Democrats,5 were Republicans, and 1, Bernard Sanders ofVermont,was an Independent.The two most con-sistent interventionists were Wilson Goode (R-VA) and Walter Jones (R-NC), who voted to sup-port trade barriers and subsidies with every votethey cast but one. The other interventionists wereRobert Aderholt (R-AL),Corrine Brown (D-FL),Gene Green (D-TX), Alcee Hastings (D-FL),Robin Hayes (R-NC), Gerald Kleczka (D-WI),William Lipinski (D-IL), Frank Pallone (D-NJ),Steven Rothman (D-NJ), Pete Stark (D-CA),Charles Taylor (R-NC), Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). (See AppendixA for a full list of members in each of the four cat-egories.)

The partisan divide in the House on trade wasnoticeably smaller in the 108th Congress than inthe previous Congress. On the 11 votes affectingtrade barriers, House Republicans voted for lower

barriers 67 percent of the time and Democrats 62percent of the time (Table 1).That compares witha 60 to 43 percent divide in the 107th Congress.On the one vote on a trade subsidy, the MarketAccess Program, small minorities in both par-ties—28 percent of Republicans and 6 percent ofDemocrats—voted against the subsidy.

The closeness of the overall averages hidessharp divisions on particular trade votes. On boththe Chile and Singapore free-trade agreements,about 88 percent of House Republicans voted forlower trade barriers compared with 37 percent ofDemocrats. The division on the Australia andMorocco FTAs was less stark but still significant,with about 90 percent of Republicans supportingthose agreements and 60 percent of Democrats.The difference was equally wide, but in the oppo-site direction, on commercial ties with Cuba.About 90 percent of Democrats in the Housevoted to effectively lift restrictions on traveling andsending remittances to Cuba, while three-quartersor more of Republicans voted to keep the restric-tions in place. (See Appendix B for a complete listof House members and their individual votes.)

A Senate Even More DividedOf the 99 senators who voted on more than

11

Table 1

Major House Votes on Trade Barriers and Subsidies, 108th Congress

Roll Free-Trade Final % Voting Free Trade

Short Description Date Call # Position Vote GOP Dems

Trade barrier votes

Tariff reductions and Laos NTR 3/23/2003 45 Yes 415-11 98 97

Relax computer export controls 5/22/2003 219 Yes 207-217 39 60

Oppose EU ban on GMOs 7/10/2003 256 Yes 339-80 100 61

Burma trade embargo 7/15/2003 361 No 418-2 1 0

Chile FTA 7/24/2003 436 Yes 270-156 87 37

Singapore FTA 7/24/2003 432 Yes 272-155 88 37

End travel ban to Cuba 9/9/2003 483 Yes 227-188 25 89

Lift cap on remittances to Cuba 9/9/2003 484 Yes 222-196 21 90

Australia FTA 7/14/2004 317 Yes 314-109 89 59

Morocco FTA 7/22/2004 413 Yes 323-99 91 61

Increase foreign-born doctors 11/17/2004 533 Yes 407-4 98 100

Trade subsidy vote

End Market Access Program 7/13/2004 368 Yes 72-347 28 6

Source: Congressional Quarterly, various issues.

half of the measures rated in this study, 24voted as free traders in the 108th Congress.They consistently opposed trade barriers whilewithholding their endorsement of trade subsi-dies by not signing the Byrd amendment letter.Another quarter voted as internationalists,opposing trade barriers but supporting thetrade subsidy. And 15 voted as interventionists,supporting both trade barriers and subsidies.None voted as an isolationist.17

Of the quarter of the Senate that voted asfree traders, 22 were Republicans and 2 wereDemocrats.The most consistent was Sen. JohnSununu (R-NH), who voted against trade bar-riers and subsidies on every vote he cast.Opposing barriers and subsidies on every votebut one were Sens. Wayne Allard (R-CO),Sam Brownback (R-KS), and Pat Roberts (R-KS). Among the other free traders were SenateMajority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Sens. JohnMcCain (R-AZ), Chuck Hagel (R-NE),Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), and Maria Cantwelland Patty Murray, both Democrats fromWashington State.

Of the 24 internationalists, 15 wereRepublicans and 9 were Democrats. The purestof the subspecies were Sens. Robert Bennett (R-UT), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO), andMichael Enzi (R-WY), who voted against tradebarriers and for subsidies on every vote they castbut one.Voting as internationalists on every votebut two were Thad Cochran (R-MS), JohnWarner (R-VA), Mark Pryor (D-AR), ConradBurns (R-MT), John Breaux (D-LA), and ZellMiller (D-GA). Also among the international-ists were Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT), the rank-ing minority member on the trade-law-writingFinance Committee, and former presidentialcandidate Joe Lieberman (D-CT).

Of the 15 interventionists, 13 were Democratsand 2 were Republicans.The most consistent wereHarry Reid (D-NV), the new Senate minorityleader; Robert Byrd (D-WV); Russ Feingold (D-WI); and John Edwards (D-NC), last year’sDemocratic vice presidential nominee. Each ofthem supported trade barriers and subsidies onevery vote they cast but one. Among the otherinterventionists were Byron Dorgan (D-ND),

12

Table 2

Major Senate Votes on Trade Barriers and Subsidies, 108th Congress

Roll Free-Trade Final % Voting Free Trade

Short Description Date Call # Position Vote GOP Dems

Trade barrier votes

Burma trade embargo 7/16/2003 280 No 94-1 2 0

Chile FTA 7/31/2003 319 Yes 65-32 86 47

Singapore FTA 7/31/2003 318 Yes 66-32 86 47

End travel ban to Cuba (table) 10/23/2003 405 No 36-59 39 87

Enforce country-of-origin labeling (table) 11/6/2003 443 Yes 36-58 59 16

Restrict federal outsourcing 3/4/2004 32 No 70-26 51 0

Discourage private outsourcing (table) 5/5/2004 83 Yes 60-39 100 19

Australia FTA 7/15/2004 156 Yes 80-16 96 70

Morocco FTA 7/21/2004 159 Yes 85-13 90 83

Tariff reductions and Laos NTR 11/19/2004 214 Yes 88-5 98 91

Trade subsidy vote

Signed letter supporting Byrd amendment 2/3/2003 N/A No 70-30 53 6

Source: Congressional Quarterly, various issues. Note: A vote to table is a vote to kill the amendment on the floor. Thus a vote in favor of tabling an amendment is in effect a vote against the amend-

ment.

Tom Harkin (D-IA), Richard Shelby (R-AL),Lindsey Graham (R-SC),and now-retired Ernest“Fritz” Hollings (D-SC). (See Appendix C for acomplete list of Senate members.)

Voting on trade was even more partisan inthe Senate than in the House. On average,Republican senators voted against trade barri-ers 71 percent of the time compared with 46percent for Democrats, while 53 percent ofRepublicans opposed the subsidies containedin the Byrd amendment compared with only 6percent of Democrats (Table 2). The differ-ences were especially wide on the Singaporeand Chile free-trade agreements, the Byrdamendment letter, country-of-origin labeling,and foreign outsourcing, where Republicanswere far more likely to oppose trade barriers orsubsidies, and travel to Cuba, where it was theDemocrats who were far more likely to opposebarriers. (See Appendix D for a complete list ofsenators and their individual votes.)

A Look Back across Four CongressesThis is the fourth Congress that has been

examined according to the Cato Institute’s free-trade matrix.18 Combining the votes from all fourstudies plus three other major trade votes allows usto discern which members of Congress have dis-played a consistent voting pattern over a periodspanning more than a decade.This and the previ-ous three studies have analyzed the 105th throughthe 108th Congresses, covering the years 1997through 2004. In addition, the combined analysisalso includes House and Senate votes in 1993 onthe North American Free Trade Agreement; in1994 on the Uruguay Round Agreements Actthat established the World Trade Organization;and in 1996 on the so-called Freedom to FarmAct,which, temporarily at least, reduced U.S.agri-cultural subsidies. In all, we can identify 38 tradebarrier votes in the House during that period and18 trade subsidy votes. In the Senate during thatsame period, we can identify 38 trade barrier votesand 9 trade subsidy votes.

The combined ratings include all membersof the 108th Congress who also cast votes inthe same chamber in a previous Congress.Thissurvey of a decade of votes includes 380 Housemembers and 90 senators.

In the House, 11 members, all Republicans,voted consistently as free traders in all the votesincluded in this analysis since 1993. The mostconsistent free trader was Jeff Flake (AZ), whoopposed trade barriers in 95 percent of votes hecast and subsidies in 100 percent of his votes.The other free traders during that time wereJohn Shadegg (AZ), Philip Crane (IL), CharlesBass (NH), James Ramstad (MN), Jim DeMint(SC), Thomas Petri (WI), Patrick Toomey(PA), John Linder (GA), and Nick Smith (MI).(See Appendix E for a complete list of Housemember ratings since 1993.)

In the Senate, as in the House, 11 Republicanmembers voted consistently as free traders duringthat time span. The most consistent free traderwas Don Nickles (OK), who opposed trade bar-riers in 89 percent of votes he cast and subsidiesin 100 percent of his votes.The other free tradersin the Senate during that time were LincolnChafee (RI), Sam Brownback (KS), John Ensign(NV),Richard Lugar (IN), Jon Kyl (AZ),WayneAllard (CO), George Voinovich (OH), JohnMcCain (AZ), Judd Gregg (NH), and MikeDeWine (OH). (See Appendix F for a completelisting of Senate member ratings since 1993.)

Another 107 House members voted consis-tently as internationalists during the pastdecade, 66 Republicans and 41 Democrats. Themost consistent internationalists were JohnBoozman (R-AR), Thomas Osborne (R-NE),Samuel Graves (R-MO),Timothy Johnson (R-IL), Charles Gonzales (D-TX), Baron Hill (D-IN), Heather Wilson (R-NM), Ruben Hino-josa (D-TX), and Cal Dooley (D-CA). In theSenate, 15 members voted consistently as inter-nationalists in the past decade, 10 Democratsand 5 Republicans.The truest to form were ZellMiller (D-GA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), JohnBreaux (D-LA), and Max Baucus (D-MT),who almost always voted against trade barriersand in favor of trade subsidies. Other notablecareer internationalists were former presidentialcandidates John Kerry (D-MA) and JosephLieberman (D-CT).

A small band of 5 House members, 4Republicans and 1 Democrat, voted consistentlyas isolationists during the past decade.They wereJohn Duncan Jr. (R-TN), Dana Rohrabacher

13

In the House,11 members,all Republicans,voted consistentlyas free traders in allthe votes includedin this analysissince 1993.

(R-CA), Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), CliffordStearns (R-FL), and Robert Andrews (D-NJ).Only 2 senators, Jon Corzine (D-NJ) and RussFeingold (D-WI), consistently favored trade bar-riers and opposed subsidies.

Gathered in the opposite corner from the freetraders were 24 career interventionists in theHouse, 16 Democrats and 8 Republicans. Themost consistent interventionist in the past decadewas now-retired House Minority Leader RichardGephardt (D-MO),who voted against trade bar-riers on 20 percent of the votes he cast and againsttrade subsidies on 12 percent. Joining Gephardtamong the more hard-core career interventionistswere Charles Taylor (R-NC), Gene Green (D-TX), Don Young (R-AK), Eliot Engel (D-NY),Dale Kildee (D-MI), Alcee Hastings (D-FL),and Corrine Brown (D-FL). Other career inter-ventionists in the House were Jesse Jackson Jr.(D-IL), David Obey (D-WI), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), andJohn Spratt (D-SC).

In the Senate, all 7 career interventionistswere Democrats. The most unwavering amongthem was now-retired Ernest “Fritz” Hollings(SC), who opposed trade barriers 16 percentand trade subsidies 22 percent of the time. Theothers were the new Senate Minority LeaderHarry Reid (NV), former vice presidentialnominee John Edwards (NC), Byron Dorgan(ND), Patrick Leahy (VT), Robert Byrd(WV), and Mark Dayton (MN).

Clues to the 109th Congress

Judging from the findings of this study,changes in Congress brought about by theNovember 2, 2004, elections do not signal asharp change in the direction of U.S. trade poli-cy. Because Republican members are more like-ly to vote for lower trade barriers and subsidies,the strengthened GOP majorities in the Houseand the Senate likely portend a Congress thatwill be slightly more friendly to free trade.

In the House, 41 members of the 108thCongress will not be returning for the 109th.Deciphering what impact the new memberswill have on trade policy is a challenge in part

because newly elected House members typical-ly have no previous record of voting on tradeissues. As a group, the 41 departed Housemembers were somewhat more likely to havevoted against trade barriers than returningmembers and slightly less likely to haveopposed trade subsidies. But any net effect onCongress as a whole will depend, of course, onhow their replacements vote on trade issues.

Among the more notable departures re-garding trade policy were those of Reps. CalDooley (D-CA), a leading internationalistamong the Democrats; former minority leaderRichard Gephardt (D-MO), a leading inter-ventionist; and Reps. Phil Crane (R-IL) andPatrick Toomey (R-PA), who were among themost consistent free traders.

The only significant leadership change in theHouse affecting trade will be the chairmanshipof the Ways and Means Subcommittee onTrade, where Rep. Clay Shaw (R-FL) hasreplaced Rep. Phil Crane, who was defeated forreelection. During his 35 years in the House,Crane compiled one of the most consistentrecords for opposing both trade barriers andsubsidies. In the major trade votes of the pastdecade, Crane opposed trade barriers 79 percentof the time compared with Shaw’s 68 percent,and he opposed trade subsidies 82 percent of thetime compared with Shaw’s 39 percent. (SeeAppendix E for the combined ratings.)

The tea leaves are somewhat easier to readin the Senate, where 6 of the 9 new senatorscompiled voting records on trade in the House.The sharpest difference between an outgoingand incoming senator is in South Carolina.There, Jim DeMint (R), who compiled one ofthe most consistent free-trade records duringhis six years in the House (1999–2005), hasreplaced Ernest “Fritz” Hollings (D), who inhis years in the Senate compiled one of themost consistent interventionist records. InNorth Carolina, Richard Burr (R), who had aninconsistent record as a House member, hasreplaced John Edwards, a consistent interven-tionist. In Oklahoma, Tom Coburn (R), whocompiled a consistent record as an isolationistin the House, has replaced Don Nickles, aleading free trader.

14

Judging from thefindings of this

study, changes inCongress brought

about by theNovember 2, 2004,

elections do not signal a sharpchange in the

direction of U.S.trade policy.

Another significant change occurred inSouth Dakota. There, John Thune (R), a con-sistent internationalist during his time in theHouse, replaced Minority Leader TomDaschle (D), who was somewhat moreinclined to support trade barriers and subsidiesduring his time in Congress. As a consequenceof that switch, the Democratic Party now has anew minority leader in the Senate, Harry Reidof Nevada, who has compiled a consistentlyinterventionist record. In the past decade, Reidhas voted for lower trade barriers 24 percent ofthe time compared with Daschle’s 63 percent.That could signal that Reid will be less inclinedphilosophically to cooperate on trade liberal-ization with Republicans than was Daschleduring his time in leadership.

In Georgia, retiring internationalist ZellMiller (D) has been replaced by JohnnyIsakson (R), who also compiled an internation-alist record during his time in the House. Thesame was true in Louisiana, where the retiringJohn Breaux (D) has been replaced by formerHouse member David Vitter (R).

None of the other three new senators—KenSalazar (D-CO), Mel Martinez (R-FL), andBarack Obama (D-IL)—has served in Congresspreviously, and thus those three have no votingrecord on trade issues. Statements on trade dur-ing the 2004 campaign are inconclusive. Forexample, Salazar told the United Stock Growersof America: “I am a strong proponent of freetrade, but we must implement appropriate safe-guards for agriculture, labor, and conservationinterests. I would carefully consider all agree-ments before casting my vote.” He also declaredhis support for the World Trade Organization as“essential to the current system of internationaltrade.”19 The senator Salazar has replaced, BenNighthorse Campbell (R), compiled an inconsis-tent record, opposing trade barriers on 46 percentof votes in the past decade and opposing tradesubsidies on 44 percent of votes.

Mel Martinez also sounded the “I favor freetrade, but . . .” theme in his campaign. On hisofficial website he declared: “I support free trademeasures that will create more jobs and providenew economic opportunities for Florida’s work-ers.Trade must also be fair so that Florida’s busi-

nesses and workers can compete on a level play-ing field in the global market.” In pursuing freetrade, he said Congress must “stand up” for suchFlorida farm sectors as sugar, citrus, and vegeta-bles.20 The senator he has replaced, BobGraham (D), was a borderline internationalist,opposing barriers on 64 percent of his votes andsubsidies on 33 percent.

Barack Obama sounded less friendly towardfree trade during his campaign than eitherMartinez or Salazar. While declaring that “freetrade—when also fair—can benefit workers inrich and poor countries alike,” Obama criticizedthe North American Free Trade Agreementwith Mexico for lacking necessary “worker andenvironmental protections.” He favors a “signif-icant renegotiation” of both NAFTA and presi-dential trade promotion authority.21 Regardingtrade with China, Obama believes the UnitedStates “should insist on labor standards andhuman rights” when negotiating on bilateraltrade issues but that we should also avoid “trig-gering a trade war” that could cause instability inthe Chinese economy with global economicconsequences.22 Of the campaign positions ofthe three new senators who had not previouslyserved in Congress, those of Obama stand in thesharpest contrast to the senator he replaced.During his one term in the Senate (1999–2005),Peter Fitzgerald (R) was a borderline free trad-er, opposing trade barriers 88 percent of the timeand trade subsidies 60 percent of the time.

When examined individually and as awhole, changes in the 109th Congress pointtoward a continuation of the status quo in con-gressional attitudes toward free trade.

A Final Assessment

Creating a free and vibrant market forinternational trade requires more than elimi-nating tariff and nontariff barriers. It requiresthe elimination of export and production sub-sidies that distort trade, draw resources awayfrom their best use, and leave the United Statesand its trading partners worse off.

Measured by this more comprehensive defin-ition of free trade, the 108th Congress was a

15

The DemocraticParty now has anew minorityleader in theSenate, Harry Reidof Nevada, who has compiled aconsistently interventionistrecord.

mixed success. On the positive side of the ledger,the House and the Senate enacted several modestbut significant trade bills, including free-tradeagreements with Chile, Singapore, Australia, andMorocco. Congress also passed a bill that unilat-erally reduced tariffs on a grab bag of miscella-neous products. And in the category of the dogthat didn’t bark, Congress refrained from passingany bills that raised trade barriers or subsidies in asignificant way.

On the negative side, the 108th Congressmade no progress in reducing trade subsidies.Spending on the Export-Import Bank, OPIC,the IMF, and agricultural subsidies all escapedcongressional scrutiny. Billions in trade subsi-dies continued to flow undisturbed.The Houseresoundingly defeated a motion to cut theMarket Access Program, and 70 senatorspledged to oppose any cuts in the direct pro-ducer subsidies doled out through the WTO-illegal Byrd amendment. While a majority inCongress hesitates to impose sweeping newtrade barriers, it does not hesitate to distortU.S. trade with a plethora of subsidies.

Members of Congress on both sides of theaisle should consider the cost of pursuing suchan incoherent policy on trade. One cost is a tar-nished U.S. image abroad. The lack of commit-ment in practice to free trade stands in contrastto the pronouncements members frequentlymake that they support the goal of free trade.America’s political leaders complain incessantlythat U.S. producers must compete in a world of“unfair” trade barriers and subsidies, while theU.S. market is open. But this study shows thatvery few members of Congress vote consistent-ly for policies that would create an international

market free of both distorting barriers and sub-sidies. Judging by the voting behavior analyzedin this study, most members of the U.S. Con-gress have no standing to criticize other govern-ments for deviating from free trade.

Another cost is to U.S. taxpayers.Trade bar-riers rob Americans of income through higherprices. Trade subsidies rob Americans by driv-ing up the cost of government, necessitatinghigher taxes or more government borrowing, orboth. As Congress searches for ways to restrainspending and bring down a fiscal deficit thatexceeded $400 billion last year, trade subsidiesshould provide an inviting target. Congress cansave billions of dollars each year, remove dis-tortions from the international economy, andimprove America’s image abroad.

Members of Congress who want to advancethe cause of limited government, economic lib-erty, and prosperity at home and abroad shouldfavor a consistent agenda of eliminating tradebarriers and trade-related subsidies. Both pro-tectionism and subsidies undermine the work-ings of the free market, substituting the judg-ment of politicians for that of millions ofinformed citizens cooperating in the interna-tional marketplace for mutual advantage.

When weighing policy toward the interna-tional economy, members of Congress do notneed to choose between anti-trade, anti-sub-sidy isolationism and pro-trade, pro-subsidyinternationalism. They can choose to vote for acoherent program to liberalize trade and elim-inate subsidies—in sum, to let Americansenjoy the freedom and prosperity of a seamlessfree market undistorted by government inter-vention.

16

While a majority inCongress hesitates

to impose sweepingnew trade barriers,it does not hesitate

to distort U.S. tradewith a plethora of

subsidies.

17

Appendix A: House Members by Category

Free TradersFlake, Jeff R AZ 2000 100% 100% Toomey, Patrick R PA 1998 78% 100%

Castle, Michael R DE 1992 91% 100% Bass, Charles R NH 1994 73% 100%

Davis, Susan D CA 2000 91% 100% Cox, Christopher R CA 1988 73% 100%

Ehlers, Vernon R MI 1993 91% 100% DeLay, Tom R TX 1984 73% 100%

Ramstad, Jim R MN 1990 91% 100% DeMint, Jim R SC 1998 73% 100%

Shays, Christopher R CT 1987 91% 100% Hensarling, Jeb R TX 2002 73% 100%

Van Hollen, Chris D MD 2002 91% 100% Linder, John R GA 1992 73% 100%

Manzullo, Donald R IL 1992 90% 100% Petri, Thomas R WI 1979 73% 100%

Fossella, Vito R NY 1997 89% 100% Smith, Nick R MI 1992 73% 100%

Udall, Mark D CO 1998 89% 100% Hayworth, J. D. R AZ 1994 70% 100%

Portman, Rob R OH 1993 82% 100% Kirk, Mark Steven R IL 2000 67% 100%

Tiberi, Patrick R OH 2001 82% 100% Myrick, Sue R NC 1994 67% 100%

Pitts, Joseph R PA 1996 80% 100%

InternationalistsJohnson, Nancy R CT 1982 100% 0% Pelosi, Nancy D CA 1987 91% 0%

Becerra, Xavier D CA 1992 91% 0% Price, David D NC 1996 91% 0%

Biggert, Judy R IL 1998 91% 0% Schiff, Adam D CA 2000 91% 0%

Blumenauer, Earl D OR 1996 91% 0% Shimkus, John R IL 1996 91% 0%

Boehlert, Sherwood R NY 1982 91% 0% Tauscher, Ellen D CA 1996 91% 0%

Bono, Mary R CA 1994 91% 0% Thompson, Mike D CA 1998 91% 0%

Boswell, Leonard D IA 1996 91% 0% Upton, Fred R MI 1986 91% 0%

Brady, Kevin R TX 1996 91% 0% Weiner, Anthony David D NY 1998 91% 0%

Camp, Dave R MI 1990 91% 0% Dooley, Calvin D CA 1990 90% 0%

Cardin, Benjamin D MD 1986 91% 0% Eshoo, Anna D CA 1992 90% 0%

Cooper, Jim D TN 1982 91% 0% Greenwood, James R PA 1992 90% 0%

Crowley, Joseph D NY 1998 91% 0% Harman, Jane D CA 2000 90% 0%

Davis, Artur D AL 2002 91% 0% Jefferson, William D LA 1990 90% 0%

Etheridge, Bob D NC 1996 91% 0% John, Christopher D LA 1996 90% 0%

Gonzalez, Charles D TX 1998 91% 0% Kind, Ron D WI 1996 90% 0%

Hill, Baron D IN 1998 91% 0% Leach, James R IA 1976 90% 0%

Hinojosa, Ruben D TX 1996 91% 0% Lowey, Nita D NY 1998 90% 0%

Hoyer, Steny D MD 1981 91% 0% Smith, Adam D WA 1996 90% 0%

Inslee, Jay D WA 1998 91% 0% Snyder, Vic D AR 1996 90% 0%

Israel, Steven D NY 2000 91% 0% Whitfield, Edward R KY 1994 90% 0%

Kolbe, Jim R AZ 1984 91% 0% Knollenberg, Joseph R MI 1992 89% 0%

LaHood, Ray R IL 1994 91% 0% Oxley, Michael R OH 1981 89% 0%

Latham, Tom R IA 1994 91% 0% Rangel, Charles D NY 1970 88% 0%

Lofgren, Zoe D CA 1994 91% 0% Doolittle, John R CA 1990 86% 0%

Matheson, James D UT 2000 91% 0% Berman, Howard D CA 1982 82% 0%

Matsui, Robert D CA 1978 91% 0% Boozman, John R AR 2001 82% 0%

Meeks, Gregory D NY 1998 91% 0% Boyd, F. Allen, Jr. D FL 1996 82% 0%

Moore, Dennis D KS 1998 91% 0% Capps, Lois D CA 1996 82% 0%

Moran, James D VA 1990 91% 0% Cramer, Robert, Jr. D AL 1990 82% 0%

Neal, Richard D MA 1988 91% 0% Davis, Jim D FL 1996 82% 0%

Pa

rty

Sta

te

Fir

st E

lect

ed

Ba

rrie

rV

ote

s

Su

bsi

dy

Vo

tes

Pa

rty

Sta

te

Fir

st E

lect

ed

Ba

rrie

rV

ote

s

Su

bsi

dy

Vo

tes

continued

18

Appendix A—continued

Davis, Lincoln D TN 2002 82% 0% Hastings, Doc R WA 1994 73% 0%

DeGette, Diana D CO 1996 82% 0% Hulshof, Kenny R MO 1996 73% 0%

Dicks, Norman D WA 1976 82% 0% Johnson, Eddie Bernice D TX 1992 73% 0%

Emanuel, Rahm D IL 2002 82% 0% Kelly, Sue R NY 1994 73% 0%

Ford, Harold, Jr. D TN 1996 82% 0% Kennedy, Mark R MN 2000 73% 0%

Gallegly, Elton R CA 1986 82% 0% Lampson, Nicholas D TX 1996 73% 0%

Hall, Ralph D TX 1980 82% 0% LaTourette, Steven R OH 1994 73% 0%

Hooley, Darlene D OR 1996 82% 0% McCrery, Jim R LA 1988 73% 0%

Issa, Darrell R CA 2000 82% 0% Mica, John R FL 1992 73% 0%

Johnson, Timothy R IL 2000 82% 0% Moran, Jerry R KS 1996 73% 0%

Levin, Sander D MI 1982 82% 0% Ney, Robert R OH 1994 73% 0%

Lucas, Kenneth D KY 1998 82% 0% Northup, Anne R KY 1996 73% 0%

Maloney, Carolyn D NY 1992 82% 0% Ose, Doug R CA 1998 73% 0%

Nethercutt, George, Jr. R WA 1994 82% 0% Pickering, Charles, Jr. R MS 1996 73% 0%

Nussle, Jim R IA 1990 82% 0% Pomeroy, Earl D ND 1992 73% 0%

Osborne, Thomas R NE 2000 82% 0% Pryce, Deborah R OH 1992 73% 0%

Otter, C. L. R ID 2000 82% 0% Putnam, Adam R FL 2000 73% 0%

Peterson, John R PA 1996 82% 0% Radanovich, George R CA 1994 73% 0%

Ryan, Paul R WI 1998 82% 0% Rehberg, Dennis R MT 2000 73% 0%

Sandlin, Max, Jr. D TX 1996 82% 0% Reyes, Silvestre D TX 1996 73% 0%

Stenholm, Charles D TX 1978 82% 0% Reynolds, Thomas R NY 1998 73% 0%

Tamner, John D TN 1988 82% 0% Rogers, Harold R KY 1980 73% 0%

Thornberry, William R TX 1994 82% 0% Roybal-Allard, Lucille D CA 1992 73% 0%

Turner, Jim D TX 1996 82% 0% Sanchez, Loretta D CA 1996 73% 0%

Watson, Diane D CA 2001 82% 0% Smith, Lamar R TX 1986 73% 0%

Wilson, Heather R NM 1998 82% 0% Thomas, William R CA 1978 73% 0%

Herger, Wally R CA 1986 80% 0% Walden, Greg R OR 1998 73% 0%

Meehan, Martin D MA 1992 80% 0% Walsh, James R NY 1988 73% 0%

Terry, Lee R NE 1998 80% 0% Watt, Melvin D NC 1992 73% 0%

Cubin, Barbara R WY 1994 78% 0% Weldon, Curt R PA 1986 73% 0%

Dunn, Jennifer R WA 1982 78% 0% Weller, Gerald R IL 1994 73% 0%

Graves, Samuel R MO 2000 78% 0% Blunt, Roy R MO 1996 70% 0%

Keller, Richard R FL 2000 78% 0% Bonilla, Henry R TX 1992 70% 0%

Baird, Brian D WA 1998 73% 0% Brown-Waite, Ginny R FL 2002 70% 0%

Boehner, John R OH 1990 73% 0% Clay, William, Jr. D MO 1968 70% 0%

Brown, Henry, Jr. R SC 2000 73% 0% Diaz-Balart, Lincoln R FL 1992 70% 0%

Cantor, Eric R VA 2000 73% 0% Gordon, Bart D TN 1984 70% 0%

Chocola, Chris R IN 2002 73% 0% McCarthy, Carolyn D NY 1996 70% 0%

Crane, Philip R IL 1969 73% 0% Nunes, Devin R CA 2002 70% 0%

Cunningham, Randy R CA 1990 73% 0% Ortiz, Solomon D TX 1982 70% 0%

Dingell, John D MI 1955 73% 0% Sessions, Pete R TX 1996 70% 0%

Dreier, David R CA 1980 73% 0% Cannon, Chris R UT 1996 67% 0%

Edwards, Chet D TX 1990 73% 0% Davis, Thomas, III R VA 1994 67% 0%

Foley, Mark R FL 1994 73% 0% Goss, Porter R FL 1988 67% 0%

Gilchrest, Wayne R MD 1990 73% 0% Millender-McDonald, Juanita D CA 1996 67% 0%

Goodlatte, Bob R VA 1992 73% 0% Neugebauer, Randy R TX 2003 67% 0%

Granger, Kay R TX 1996 73% 0% Sullivan, John R OK 2002 67% 0%

Harris, Katherine R FL 2002 73% 0% Towns, Edolphus D NY 1982 67% 0%

Hart, Melissa R PA 2000 73% 0%

Pa

rty

Sta

te

Fir

st E

lect

ed

Ba

rrie

rV

ote

s

Su

bsi

dy

Vo

tes

Pa

rty

Sta

te

Fir

st E

lect

ed

Ba

rrie

rV

ote

s

Su

bsi

dy

Vo

tes

19

IsolationistsAndrews, Robert D NJ 1990 18% 100% Pascrell, William, Jr. D NJ 1996 18% 100%

InterventionistsKleczka, Gerald D WI 1984 33% 0% Hayes, Robin R NC 1998 27% 0%

Velazquez, Nydia D NY 1992 33% 0% Lipinski, William D IL 1982 27% 0%

Stark, Fortney D CA 1972 30% 0% Pallone, Frank, Jr. D NJ 1988 27% 0%

Woolsey, Lynn D CA 1992 30% 0% Sanders, Bernard I VT 1990 27% 0%

Aderholt, Robert R AL 1996 27% 0% Rothman, Steven D NJ 1996 20% 0%

Brown, Corrine D FL 1992 27% 0% Taylor, Charles R NC 1990 18% 0%

Green, Gene D TX 1992 27% 0% Goode, Virgil, Jr. R VA 1996 9% 0%

Hastings, Alcee D FL 1992 27% 0% Jones, Walter, Jr. R NC 1994 9% 0%

Pa

rty

Sta

te

Fir

st E

lect

ed

Ba

rrie

rV

ote

s

Su

bsi

dy

Vo

tes

Pa

rty

Sta

te

Fir

st E

lect

ed

Ba

rrie

rV

ote

s

Su

bsi

dy

Vo

tes

20

Appendix B: Individual House Voting Records

Roll call number 45 219 256 361 432 436 483 484 375 413 533 368

Year of vote 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004

“Free-Trade” position Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Abercrombie, Neil D HI 1990 45% 0% + - - - - - + + - + + -

Ackerman, Gary D NY 1983 55% 0% + + + - - - - - + + + -

Aderholt, Robert R AL 1996 27% 0% - - + - - - - - + - + -

Akin, W. Todd R MO 2000 45% 0% + - + - - - - - + + + -

Alexander, Rodney R LA 2002 45% 0% + - + - - - + + - - + -

Allen, Thomas D ME 1996 64% 0% + + - - - - + + + + + -

Andrews, Robert D NJ 1990 18% 100% + - - - - - - - - - + +

Baca, Joe D CA 1999 45% 0% + + - - - - + + - - + -

Bachus, Spencer R AL 1992 64% 100% + - + - + + - - + + + +

Baird, Brian D WA 1998 73% 0% + + - - + - + + + + + -

Baker, Richard R LA 1986 64% 0% + - + - + + - - + + + -

Balance, Frank D NC 2002 88% + + + - + + + +

Baldwin, Tammy D WI 1998 45% 0% + + - - - - + + - - + -

Ballenger, Cass R NC 1986 64% 0% + - + - + + - - + + + -

Barrett, J. Gresham R SC 2002 36% 100% + - + - - - - - + - + +

Bartlett, Roscoe R MD 1992 64% 100% + - + - + + - - + + + +

Barton, Joe R TX 1984 64% 0% + - + - + + - - + + + -

Bass, Charles R NH 1994 73% 100% + - + - + + + + - + + +

Beauprez, Bob R CO 2002 64% 0% + - + - + + - - + + + -

Becerra, Xavier D CA 1992 91% 0% + + + - + + + + + + + -

Bell, Chris D TX 2002 64% 0% + - + - - - + + + + + -

Bereuter, Douglas R NE 1978 90% + + + - + + + + + +

Berkley, Shelly D NV 1998 63% 100% + + - - - + + + +

Berman, Howard D CA 1982 82% 0% + - + - + + + + + + + -

Berry, Marion D AR 1996 45% 0% + - + - - - + + - - + -

Biggert, Judy R IL 1998 91% 0% + + + - + + + + + + + -

Bilirakis, Michael R FL 1982 64% 0% + - + - + + - - + + + -

Bishop, Robert R UT 2002 44% 0% + - + - - - - + + -

Bishop, Sanford, Jr. D GA 1992 64% 0% + - + - - - + + + + + -

Bishop, Tim D NY 2002 64% 0% + + - - - - + + + + + -

Blackburn, Marsha R TN 2002 64% 0% + - + - + + - - + + + -

Pa

rty

Sta

te

Fir

st E

lect

ed

Ba

rrie

rV

ote

s

Su

bsi

dy

Vo

tes

Mis

cell

an

eou

s T

ari

ff R

edu

ctio

n

Rel

ax C

om

pu

ter

Exp

ort

Con

trols

Op

po

se E

U G

MO

Ba

n

Bu

rma

Im

po

rt S

an

ctio

ns

Sin

ga

po

re F

TA

Ch

ile

FT

A

All

ow

Cu

ba

Tra

vel

All

ow

Rem

itta

nce

s to

Cu

ba

Au

stra

lia

FT

A

Mo

rocc

o F

TA

Incr

ease

Fo

reig

n D

oct

ors

Cu

t M

ark

et A

cces

s P

rog

ram

21

Roll call number 45 219 256 361 432 436 483 484 375 413 533 368

Year of vote 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004

“Free-Trade” position Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Blumenauer, Earl D OR 1996 91% 0% + + + - + + + + + + + -

Blunt, Roy R MO 1996 70% 0% + + - + + - - + + + -

Boehlert, Sherwood R NY 1982 91% 0% + + + - + + + + + + + -

Boehner, John R OH 1990 73% 0% + + + - + + - - + + + -

Bonilla, Henry R TX 1992 70% 0% + + - + + - - + + + -

Bonner, Jo R AL 2002 64% 0% + - + - + + - - + + + -

Bono, Mary R CA 1994 91% 0% + + + - + + + + + + + -

Boozman, John R AR 2001 82% 0% + - + - + + + + + + + -

Boswell, Leonard D IA 1996 91% 0% + + + - + + + + + + + -

Boucher, Rick D VA 1982 55% 0% + + + - - - + + - - + -

Boyd, F. Allen, Jr. D FL 1996 82% 0% + - + - + + + + + + + -

Bradley, Jeb R NH 2002 64% 100% + - + - + + - - + + + +

Brady, Kevin R TX 1996 91% 0% + + + - + + + + + + + -

Brady, Robert D PA 1998 45% 0% + - + - - - + + - - + -

Brown, Corrine D FL 1992 27% 0% + - - - - - - + - - + -

Brown, Henry, Jr. R SC 2000 73% 0% + + + - + + - - + + + -

Brown, Sherrod D OH 1992 36% 100% + - - - - - + + - - + +

Brown-Waite, Ginny R FL 2002 70% 0% + + - + + - - + + + -

Burgess, Michael R TX 2002 60% 100% + - + - + + - - + + +

Burns, Max R GA 2002 55% 0% + - + - + + - - + - + -

Burr, Richard R NC 1982 60% 0% + + + - + + - - + - -

Burton, Dan R IN 1982 45% 100% + - + - + + - - - - + +

Butterfield, G. K. D NC 2004 50% - +

Buyer, Steve R IN 1992 64% 0% + - + - + + - - + + + -

Calvert, Ken R CA 1992 64% 0% + - + - + + - - + + + -

Camp, Dave R MI 1990 91% 0% + + + - + + + + + + + -

Cannon, Chris R UT 1996 67% 0% + + + - + + - - + -

Cantor, Eric R VA 2000 73% 0% + + + - + + - - + + + -

Capito, Shelly Moore R WV 2000 64% 0% + - + - + + - - + + + -

Capps, Lois D CA 1996 82% 0% + + - - + + + + + + + -

Capuano, Michael D MA 1998 55% 0% - + + - - - + + + - + -

Pa

rty

Sta

te

Fir

st E

lect

ed

Ba

rrie

rV

ote

s

Su

bsi

dy

Vo

tes

Mis

cell

an

eou

s T

ari

ff R

edu

ctio

n

Rel

ax C

om

pu

ter

Exp

ort

Con

trols

Op

po

se E

U G

MO

Ba

n

Bu

rma

Im

po

rt S

an

ctio

ns

Sin

ga

po

re F

TA

Ch

ile

FT

A

All

ow

Cu

ba

Tra

vel

All

ow

Rem

itta

nce

s to

Cu

ba

Au

stra

lia

FT

A

Mo

rocc

o F

TA

Incr

ease

Fo

reig

n D

oct

ors

Cu

t M

ark

et A

cces

s P

rog

ram

continued

22

Appendix B—continued

Roll call number 45 219 256 361 432 436 483 484 375 413 533 368

Year of vote 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004

“Free-Trade” position Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Cardin, Benjamin D MD 1986 91% 0% + + + - + + + + + + + -

Cardoza, Dennis D CA 2002 55% 0% + + + - - - + + - - + -

Carson, Brad D OK 2000 73% + - + - + + + + - + +

Carson, Julia D IN 1996 44% 0% + - - - - - + + + -

Carter, John R TX 2002 64% 100% + - + - + + - - + + + +

Case, Ed D HI 2002 64% 0% + + + - + + - - - + + -

Castle, Michael R DE 1992 91% 100% + + + - + + + + + + + +

Chabot, Steve R OH 1994 64% 100% + - + - + + - - + + + +

Chandler, Ben D KY 2004 100% 0% + + + -

Chocola, Chris R IN 2002 73% 0% + + + - + + - - + + + -

Clay, William, Jr. D MO 1968 70% 0% + + + - - - + + + + -

Clyburn, James D SC 1992 36% 0% - - - - - - + + - + + -

Coble, Howard R NC 1984 36% 0% + - + - - - - - + - + -

Cole, Tom R OK 2002 64% 0% + - + - + + - - + + + -

Collins, Michael R GA 1992 56% + - + - + + - - +

Combest, Larry R TX 1984 100% +

Conyers, John, Jr. D MI 1964 50% 0% + + - - - + + - - + -

Cooper, Jim D TN 1982 91% 0% + + + - + + + + + + + -

Costello, Jerry D IL 1988 45% 0% + - + - - - + + - - + -

Cox, Christopher R CA 1988 73% 100% + + + - + + - - + + + +

Cramer, Robert, Jr. D AL 1990 82% 0% + - + - + + + + + + + -

Crane, Philip R IL 1969 73% 0% + + + - + + - - + + + -

Crenshaw, Ander R FL 2000 64% 0% + - + - + + - - + + + -

Crowley, Joseph D NY 1998 91% 0% + + + - + + + + + + + -

Cubin, Barbara R WY 1994 78% 0% + + - + + - + + + -

Culberson, John Abney R TX 2000 64% 100% + - + - + + - - + + + +

Cummings, Elijah D MD 1996 56% 0% + + + - - - - + + -

Cunningham, Randy R CA 1990 73% 0% + + + - + + - - + + + -

Davis, Artur D AL 2002 91% 0% + + + - + + + + + + + -

Davis, Danny D IL 1996 45% 0% + + - - - - + + - - + -

Davis, Jim D FL 1996 82% 0% + + + - + + - + + + + -

Pa

rty

Sta

te

Fir

st E

lect

ed

Ba

rrie

rV

ote

s

Su

bsi

dy

Vo

tes

Mis

cell

an

eou

s T

ari

ff R

edu

ctio

n

Rel

ax C

om

pu

ter

Exp

ort

Con

trols

Op

po

se E

U G

MO

Ba

n

Bu

rma

Im

po

rt S

an

ctio

ns

Sin

ga

po

re F

TA

Ch

ile

FT

A

All

ow

Cu

ba

Tra

vel

All

ow

Rem

itta

nce

s to

Cu

ba

Au

stra

lia

FT

A

Mo

rocc

o F

TA

Incr

ease

Fo

reig

n D

oct

ors

Cu

t M

ark

et A

cces

s P

rog

ram

23

Roll call number 45 219 256 361 432 436 483 484 375 413 533 368

Year of vote 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004

“Free-Trade” position Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Davis, Jo Ann R VA 2000 45% 100% + - + - - - - - + + + +

Davis, Lincoln D TN 2002 82% 0% + - + - + + + + + + + -

Davis, Susan D CA 2000 91% 100% + + + - + + + + + + + +

Davis, Thomas, III R VA 1994 67% 0% + + - + - - + + + -

Deal, Nathan R GA 1992 45% 0% + - + - - - - - + + + -

DeFazio, Peter D OR 1986 36% 0% + - - - - - + + - - + -

DeGette, Diana D CO 1996 82% 0% + + - - + + + + + + + -

Delahunt, William D MA 1996 45% 0% + + - - - - + + - - + -

DeLauro, Rosa D CT 1990 55% 0% + + - - - + + + - - + -

DeLay, Tom R TX 1984 73% 100% + + + - + + - - + + + +

DeMint, Jim R SC 1998 73% 100% + - + - + + + - + + + +

Deutsch, Peter D FL 1992 36% + - + - - - - - - + +

Diaz-Balart, Lincoln R FL 1992 70% 0% + + + - + + - - + + -

Diaz-Balart, Mario R FL 2002 60% 0% + - + - + + - - + + -

Dicks, Norman D WA 1976 82% 0% + - + - + + + + + + + -

Dingell, John D MI 1955 73% 0% + + + - - - + + + + + -

Doggett, Lloyd D TX 1994 64% 100% + + - - + - + + + - + +

Dooley, Calvin D CA 1990 90% 0% + + + - + + + + + + -

Doolittle, John R CA 1990 86% 0% + - + + + + + -

Doyle, Michael D PA 1994 55% 0% + - + - - - + + + - + -

Dreier, David R CA 1980 73% 0% + + + - + + - - + + + -

Duncan, John, Jr. R TN 1988 36% 100% + - + - - - - - + + - +

Dunn, Jennifer R WA 1982 78% 0% + + + - + + - + + -

Edwards, Chet D TX 1990 73% 0% + - + - + + + - + + + -

Ehlers, Vernon R MI 1993 91% 100% + + + - + + + + + + + +

Emanuel, Rahm D IL 2002 82% 0% + + + - + + + + - + + -

Emerson, Jo Ann R MO 1996 63% 0% + + - + + - - + -

Engel, Eliot D NY 1988 45% 0% + + - - - - - - + + + -

English, Philip R PA 1994 64% 0% + - + - + + - - + + + -

Eshoo, Anna D CA 1992 90% 0% + + - + + + + + + + -

Etheridge, Bob D NC 1996 91% 0% + + + - + + + + + + + -

Pa

rty

Sta

te

Fir

st E

lect

ed

Ba

rrie

rV

ote

s

Su

bsi

dy

Vo

tes

Mis

cell

an

eou

s T

ari

ff R

edu

ctio

n

Rel

ax C

om

pu

ter

Exp

ort

Con

trols

Op

po

se E

U G

MO

Ba

n

Bu

rma

Im

po

rt S

an

ctio

ns

Sin

ga

po

re F

TA

Ch

ile

FT

A

All

ow

Cu

ba

Tra

vel

All

ow

Rem

itta

nce

s to

Cu

ba

Au

stra

lia

FT

A

Mo

rocc

o F

TA

Incr

ease

Fo

reig

n D

oct

ors

Cu

t M

ark

et A

cces

s P

rog

ram

continued

24

Appendix B—continued

Roll call number 45 219 256 361 432 436 483 484 375 413 533 368

Year of vote 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004

“Free-Trade” position Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Evans, Lane D IL 1982 45% 0% + - + - - - + + - - + -

Everett, Terry R AL 1992 64% 0% + - + - - + + - + + + -

Farr, Sam D CA 1993 55% 0% + + - - - - + + + - + -

Fattah, Chaka D PA 1994 45% 0% + - - - - - + + - + + -

Feeney, Tom R FL 2002 64% 100% + - + - + + - - + + + +

Ferguson, Michael R NJ 2000 64% 100% + - + - + + - - + + + +

Filner, Bob D CA 1992 36% 0% + - - - - - + + - - + -

Flake, Jeff R AZ 2000 100% 100% + + + + + + + + + + + +

Fletcher, Ernest R KY 1988 86% + + - + + + +

Foley, Mark R FL 1994 73% 0% + + + - + + - - + + + -

Forbes, J. Randy R VA 2001 64% 0% + - + - + + - - + + + -

Ford, Harold, Jr. D TN 1996 82% 0% + - + - + + + + + + + -

Fossella, Vito R NY 1997 89% 100% + + + - + + + + + +

Frank, Barney D MA 1980 50% 0% + + - - - + + - - + -

Franks, Trent R AZ 2002 60% 100% - + - + + - - + + + +

Frelinghuysen, Rodney R NJ 1994 64% 100% + - + - + + - - + + + +

Frost, Martin D TX 1978 64% 0% + + + - - - + - + + + -

Gallegly, Elton R CA 1986 82% 0% + + + - + + + - + + + -

Garrett, Scott R NJ 2002 64% 100% + - + - + + - - + + + +

Gephardt, Richard D MO 1976 33% 0% - - + -

Gerlach, Jim R PA 2002 64% 0% + - + - + + - - + + + -

Gibbons, James R NV 1996 64% 100% + - + - + + - - + + + +

Gilchrest, Wayne R MD 1990 73% 0% + - + - + + - + + + + -

Gillmor, Paul R OH 1988 55% 0% + - + - + - - - + + + -

Gingrey, Phil R GA 2002 64% 0% + - + - + + - - + + + -

Gonzalez, Charles D TX 1998 91% 0% + + + - + + + + + + + -

Goode, Virgil, Jr. R VA 1996 9% 0% - - + - - - - - - - - -

Goodlatte, Bob R VA 1992 73% 0% + + + - + + - - + + + -

Gordon, Bart D TN 1984 70% 0% + + - - - + + + + + -

Goss, Porter R FL 1988 67% 0% + + + - + - - + + -

Granger, Kay R TX 1996 73% 0% + + + - + + - - + + + -

Pa

rty

Sta

te

Fir

st E

lect

ed

Ba

rrie

rV

ote

s

Su

bsi

dy

Vo

tes

Mis

cell

an

eou

s T

ari

ff R

edu

ctio

n

Rel

ax C

om

pu

ter

Exp

ort

Con

trols

Op

po

se E

U G

MO

Ba

n

Bu

rma

Im

po

rt S

an

ctio

ns

Sin

ga

po

re F

TA

Ch

ile

FT

A

All

ow

Cu

ba

Tra

vel

All

ow

Rem

itta

nce

s to

Cu

ba

Au

stra

lia

FT

A

Mo

rocc

o F

TA

Incr

ease

Fo

reig

n D

oct

ors

Cu

t M

ark

et A

cces

s P

rog

ram

25

Roll call number 45 219 256 361 432 436 483 484 375 413 533 368

Year of vote 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004

“Free-Trade” position Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Graves, Samuel R MO 2000 78% 0% + - + - + + + + + -

Green, Gene D TX 1992 27% 0% + - - - - - - - + - + -

Green, Mark R WI 1998 45% 0% + - + - - + - - - + + -

Greenwood, James R PA 1992 90% 0% + + + - + + + + + + -

Grijalva, Raul D AZ 2002 45% 0% + + - - - - + + - - + -

Gutierrez, Luis D IL 1992 45% 0% + + - - - - + + - - + -

Gutknecht, Gil R MN 1994 60% + + + - + - - - + +

Hall, Ralph D TX 1980 82% 0% + - + - + + + + + + + -

Harman, Jane D CA 2000 90% 0% + + - + + + + + + + -

Harris, Katherine R FL 2002 73% 0% + + + - + + - - + + + -

Hart, Melissa R PA 2000 73% 0% + + + - + + - - + + + -

Hastert, J. Dennis R IL 1986 100% +

Hastings, Alcee D FL 1992 27% 0% + + - - - - - - - - + -

Hastings, Doc R WA 1994 73% 0% + + + - + + - - + + + -

Hayes, Robin R NC 1998 27% 0% + - + - - - - - - - + -

Hayworth, J. D. R AZ 1994 70% 100% + - + + + - - + + + +

Hefley, Joel R CO 1986 55% 100% + - + - - - + - + + + +

Hensarling, Jeb R TX 2002 73% 100% + + + - + + - - + + + +

Herger, Wally R CA 1986 80% 0% + + - + + + - + + + -

Herseth, Stephanie D SD 2004 67% 0% - + + -

Hill, Baron D IN 1998 91% 0% + + + - + + + + + + + -

Hinchey, Maurice D NY 1992 36% 0% + - - - - - + + - - + -

Hinojosa, Ruben D TX 1996 91% 0% + + + - + + + + + + + -

Hobson, David R OH 1990 64% 0% + - + - + + - - + + + -

Hoeffel, Joseph, III D PA 1998 60% 0% + - + - - - + + + + -

Hoekstra, Peter R MI 1992 56% 100% + + + - - - - + + +

Holden, Tim D PA 1992 55% 0% + - + - - - + + + - + -

Holt, Rush D NJ 1998 64% 0% + + + - - - + + + - + -

Honda, Michael D CA 2000 64% 0% + + - - - - + + + + + -

Hooley, Darlene D OR 1996 82% 0% + + + - + - + + + + + -

Hostettler, John R IN 1994 45% 100% + - + - - - + + - - + +

Pa

rty

Sta

te

Fir

st E

lect

ed

Ba

rrie

rV

ote

s

Su

bsi

dy

Vo

tes

Mis

cell

an

eou

s T

ari

ff R

edu

ctio

n

Rel

ax C

om

pu

ter

Exp

ort

Con

trols

Op

po

se E

U G

MO

Ba

n

Bu

rma

Im

po

rt S

an

ctio

ns

Sin

ga

po

re F

TA

Ch

ile

FT

A

All

ow

Cu

ba

Tra

vel

All

ow

Rem

itta

nce

s to

Cu

ba

Au

stra

lia

FT

A

Mo

rocc

o F

TA

Incr

ease

Fo

reig

n D

oct

ors

Cu

t M

ark

et A

cces

s P

rog

ram

continued

26

Appendix B—continued

Roll call number 45 219 256 361 432 436 483 484 375 413 533 368

Year of vote 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 20